Report: Boehner may announce that House is suing Obama for executive overreach as early as this week; Update: Announcement made

posted at 11:21 am on June 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

It’s been in the works for awhile. Tom Rice introduced a resolution back in December that would allow the House as a body to sue O for failing to faithfully execute the laws. By January, he had at least a dozen colleagues pushing the leadership on it. By February, there were 43 co-sponsors. I wrote about it at the time, noting that Rice claimed he had met resistance from at least one member of the House leadership who thought his bill seemed “radical.”

Boehner told the House Republican Conference during a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning that he has been consulting with legal scholars and plans to unveil his next steps this week or next, according to sources in the room.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said further action is necessary because the Senate has not taken up bills passed by the House targeting executive actions. The House has passed a bill expediting court consideration of House resolutions starting lawsuits targeting executive overreach and another mandating that the attorney general notify Congress when the administration decides to take executive action outside of what has been authorized by Congress.

“The president has a clear record of ignoring the American people’s elected representatives and exceeding his constitutional authority, which has dangerous implications for both our system of government and our economy,” Steel said. “The House has passed legislation to address this, but it has gone nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so we are examining other options.”

Maybe Boehner figures that after all the sturm and drang of primary season, and with so much upset among the base over an amnesty that may or may not be looming, slapping Obama with a constitutional suit over his autocratic excesses on ObamaCare, DACA, etc, is just the trick to unify Republicans before the midterms. The mechanism for how they’ll bring the suit on behalf of the House isn’t quite clear yet: It might involve a vote of the House’s “Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group,” which consists of three Republicans and two Democrats, and/or a vote of the entire House, but either way the GOP has the numbers. The “legal scholars” Boehner’s been consulting with, incidentally, are almost certainly David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, who wrote an influential op-ed a few months ago about how the House might be able to use the courts to rein Obama in. George Will summarized their argument this way in his recent column about “stopping a lawless president”:

Courts, understandably fearful of being inundated by lawsuits from small factions of disgruntled legislators, have been wary of granting legislative standing. However, David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University have studied the case law and believe that standing can be obtained conditional on four things:

That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorizes a lawsuit. That the lawsuit concern the president’s “benevolent” suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff. That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law. And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress’s power.

No problem on the first and second steps. No real problem on the fourth either: By unilaterally suspending major provisions of O-Care like the employer mandate, for instance, Obama’s obviously nullifying duly enacted federal statutes. The sticking point, I think, will be the third step. Congress could, in theory, undo all of Obama’s executive orders by overriding them with a two-thirds veto-proof vote of both chambers. The fact that there’s no chance of that happening because the Senate is controlled by Democrats might be cited by courts as proof that this is really a political question, something to be settled by voters rather than by judges. Will pushes back hard against that in his piece, arguing that it can’t be the case that courts will bless repeated separation-of-powers violations simply because one party and a comatose electorate are happy to look the other way at them. Hopefully not, but if the Rivkin/Foley approach is adopted by SCOTUS, it might lead to one or both chambers of Congress routinely suing the president for all but the most pedestrian executive actions. That’s not a bad outcome if you’re a fan of redistributing a little power from the executive branch to the legislative, but federal judges might get fidgety at the thought of being sucked into the middle of it.

The hard thing here for the GOP, though, isn’t the legal battle but the political battle. Like I said when I wrote about this in January, they’re essentially betting that there’s enough of a civic reservoir among the public that Republicans won’t be punished if they win this suit and Obama is forced to cancel his executive DREAM amnesty or to apply the nastier provisions of ObamaCare that he’s suspended so far. O’s going to go to voters and say, “I tried to help you by protecting you from bad laws. Republicans wouldn’t let me.” The GOP’s going to then turn around and say, “What he was doing was unconstitutional. Case closed.” Knowing American voters as you do, which approach do you think they’ll be more receptive to, the bottom-line one or the constitutional one? This is why Boehner held off until now on suing, of course — because he has a sneaking suspicion he wouldn’t win that public opinion battle, even though he should. By filing this suit only a few months before the midterms, maybe he’s counting on it being tied up in court long enough that he won’t have to worry about the outcome until after the votes are in.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

As if cancelling DREAM is the only solution. GOP could propose to expedite citizenship for all those in the legal immigration line AS A REWARD FOR DOING FOLLOWING THE LAW. That shifts the focus off them and shows how they are helping promote lawful immigration reform, which is what they should be doing instead of participating in Obama’s daily and ever-changing reality show immigration circus.

HopeHeFails on June 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM

That would require moral courage, something lacking in the Weeper and his apologists.

There is one other constitutional power that the Congress has, the power of the purse. But that is rendered as moot as the power of impeachment because of the Democrat majority in the Senate…and the unwillingness of the GOPe to return to the government shutdown route because they lost the last PR battle so badly.

The Founders envisioned that in the event of a stand-off like this, the voter would ultimately make the decision in electing a new Congress which would either rubber-stamp the actions of the Executive or use their two primary limits to rein in the actions of the Executive.

Boehner, stung and threatened by so many complaining about his feckless leadership, is doing little more than offering the appearances of doing something – something that risks little political capital (which actual leadership would require).

If he and McConnell would actually lead, communicate, make a cogent case on a daily basis, things might be different…but that also requires the cojones to want to take on the corrupt and biased media. Politicians interested in going along to get along will never take that step.

Even if Boehner is successful in his litigation against Barack Obama -how will it be enforced? Obama has already demonstrated that he will ignore not only legislation, but judicial judgments that he personally dislikes or thinks is incorrect. It’s not as if the courts have enforcement powers…and Obama wouldn’t be the first President to dare the courts to enforce their rulings.

Who said it?
“In an Obama presidency, what you will see will be a sufficient respect for law and the coequal branches of government.”
Answer: Senator Barack Obama, 2007http://youtu.be/mEU3S0V0oDI
Good Lt on June 25, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Well, you CAN see it… if you define ‘sufficient’ the way he meant it.
/s

Even if Boehner is successful in his litigation against Barack Obama -how will it be enforced?
Athos on June 25, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Let’s not forget that the federal bureaucracy is chock-a-block full of unrepentant liberals and progressives anxious to implement Dear Leader’s plans even without explicit Executive Orders. This flywheel effect keeps government in the hands of the liberals even under Republican administrations. For them, there is no down time in the march toward socialism.

I didn’t think it would be politically bad to impeach Clinton either, but it was, it’s just the way things work. Maybe being black would be a factor too, but I’m not even counting that. It’s sort of a watershed principle, once public opinion tips one way, then the masses don’t want to admit they’re wrong. And without the constant drumbeat from the press saying Obama is evil, people will rally around him. And as stupid as it sounds, lots of people like Obama, even though increasingly they don’t think he can handle the job.
Fenris on June 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Thank you, Fenris.

Yes, the spin by the LSM was bad–and the Senate bounced back and forth between parties. And Newt got tossed.

Still, one would think the House and Senate would do right by impeaching a president (and members of his cabinet as well as agency heads) who are so flagrantly violating the Constitution, their oaths of office and parts of the US Code.

Let’s not forget that the federal bureaucracy is chock-a-block full of unrepentant liberals and progressives anxious to implement Dear Leader’s plans even without explicit Executive Orders. This flywheel effect keeps government in the hands of the liberals even under Republican administrations. For them, there is no down time in the march toward socialism.

It’s not about my answer, that’s the TRUTH. That’s the REALITY. Seriously, you haven’t heard/read the answers from (R) House members when they’ve been asked that same question?
They ALL talk about how impeachment will go no where because of the (R) fears they’ll be called racists for even attempting it.
Surely you’re not THAT naive as to not have known that!
Meople on June 25, 2014 at 1:04 PM
My sincerest apologies, Meople.

I’ve heard that, but I find that reasoning by the R’s very flawed and am surprised they would stick to it. It’s very disheartening to me to hear such an excuse, because I feel that one’s skin colour is no excuse to allow such flagrant abuse of power and corruption to run rampant throughout our government.

I’ve heard that, but I find that reasoning by the R’s very flawed and am surprised they would stick to it. It’s very disheartening to me to hear such an excuse, because I feel that one’s skin colour is no excuse to allow such flagrant abuse of power and corruption to run rampant throughout our government.

Newtie and the Beauty on June 25, 2014 at 2:19 PM

I agree with you entirely. I think it’s really just a pathetic, excuse for them to use, mainly because a large number of (R)’s don’t really WANT to stick their necks out and truly fight against Obama.

Skin color shouldn’t be a factor at all in my opinion. But the State-Run media will make it a factor. Neither Obama nor the media can defend what Obama’s done on it’s merits. They only defense they have is racial.

So, while you and I would like for the (R)’s to be able to fight through that and make people see the truly valid merits and reasoning behind pursuing impeachment, many (R)’s don’t have the stomach for it, and hide behind the fear of being called racists as reason to not act.

I’m sorry for my passion, I didn’t mean to sound contentious with you. I know we’re on the same side here.

On the race deal, have only Black Republicans do interviews with the media on the impeachment. Put them in as oommittee chairs for the time of the work to be done. Same in the Senate and only allow black’s on the talk shows, only black R’s on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS and NPR.

On the race deal, have only Black Republicans do interviews with the media on the impeachment. Put them in as oommittee chairs for the time of the work to be done. Same in the Senate and only allow black’s on the talk shows, only black R’s on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS and NPR.

Total black out in the coverage……

Play the race card face up.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 25, 2014 at 2:36 PM

HAHA, yeah, then all we’d hear is how Obama is being impeached by a bunch of uncle tom’s. I agree though, that’s one way to go.

If laws give the Executive branch leeway, then the Executive branch will utilize that leeway. This lawsuit is purely political, and likely an attempt to prevent the GOP from fracturing. Just as one of the interchangeable writers stated.

As if cancelling DREAM is the only solution. GOP could propose to expedite citizenship for all those in the legal immigration line AS A REWARD FOR DOING FOLLOWING THE LAW. That shifts the focus off them and shows how they are helping promote lawful immigration reform, which is what they should be doing instead of participating in Obama’s daily and ever-changing reality show immigration circus.

HopeHeFails on June 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM

This. we need to shift the focus away from illegal immigration and on to legal immigration. Improve the current immigration law and reward those that are legally following the process – shift our system away from family based chained migration to skills based immigration. remove the diversity visa etc. Along with this also enforce stricter visa controls so everyone who enters on a visitor visa has to leave, impose stricter penalties for hiring illegals etc.

GOP needs to become the voice and face of promoting good practices in our legal immigration system.

The timing on this is sound, with the IRS and EPA involved in clear partisan hacking the public has had close to enough. A special prosecutor will tie it all together in the last two year after the Senate changes hands.

Speaker Boehner must have read George Will’s June 20th column titled, “Stopping a lawless president.”

Will explains a plan put forth by David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University, both of whom believe there is a way for Congress to gain the necessary standing to sue Obama’s executive branch and thus overcome the reluctance of the judicial branch to get in the middle of a separation of powers fight.

The “legal scholars” Boehner’s been consulting with, incidentally, are almost certainly David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, who wrote an influential op-ed a few months ago about how the House might be able to use the courts to rein Obama in. George Will summarized their argument this way in his recent column about “stopping a lawless president”:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death.
Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more.It is a tale
Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

It’s hard to believe that John Boehner was first elected as a reformer in 1994. He was heavily involved in investigating the House Banking Scandal. Somewhere along the way he discovered that it’s much more profitable being part of the problem than part of the solution.

I can see them being written off for good if they do, and the country suffering because of it.

V7_Sport on June 25, 2014 at 3:45 PM

F^&* candidates like Cochran who prostituted himself to Blacks to falsely get their vote.

We can’t get every candidate we want, but we must continue to fight.

Here in Colorado, I supported Bob Beauprez. Not because he’s the most conservative, but because the Democrats campaigned against him in favor of Tom Tancredo.

I like Tancredo. My good friend has had conversations with him and says he’s the real deal. However, I refuse to let the Dims select my candidate.

Yeah, Beauprez isn’t the most conservative – he’s more of a traditional Republican. But, he’s a hell of a lot more conservative than the establishment. He’s a cattle rancher here in Colorado. I’d trust a cattle rancher over most anyone else.

It appears now that there is one U.S. law about which the Obama administration intends to be a stickler for enforcement.

It’s called the “Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2007,” and was a pet project of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein that was signed into law by George W. Bush.

The Feinstein law requires ICE to turn over unaccompanied child illegal aliens (UACs) to HHS, and it gives the UACs all sorts of legal protections, including the right to a lawyer, and forbids them from being subject to quick deportations. In fact, the law requires HHS to act in the best interests of the children, meaning it basically forbids deportation of UACs in most instances.

It’s clear now what is happening on our southern border. The Obama administration decided to use this law to import hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Central American illegal alien kids (the Feinstein law doesn’t apply to Mexican and Canadian kids) during the last two years of Obama’s term. They knew that if they got the UACs here, the Feinstein law would prevent them from being deported. That is why all these kids started showing up recently, talking (until they were told to shut up) about how they had come because they had been told that they would get “permissos” — i.e., special permission to stay in the U.S.

The Obama administration placed in ad in January for a contractor who could handle 65,000 UACs — despite the fact that ICE had never apprehended more than 5,000 UACs in any prior year. How did the administration know that such a huge, and unprecedented, number of UACs would be coming into the U.S.? It is obvious that they knew it because they are the ones who planted the rumors in Central America about the “permissos.” They knew that once they got the kids here, they could keep them here permanently, using the Feinstein law.

Our country is literally being stolen out from under us, by the criminally corrupt Obama administration, and all John Boehner can think to do is file a lawsuit.

… they’re essentially betting that there’s enough of a civic reservoir among the public that Republicans won’t be punished if they win this suit and Obama is forced to cancel his executive DREAM amnesty or to apply the nastier provisions of ObamaCare that he’s suspended so far. The GOP’s going to then turn around and say, “What he was doing was unconstitutional. Case closed.” Knowing American voters as you do, which approach do you think they’ll be more receptive to, the bottom-line one or the constitutional one?

.
If Republicans were smart, in that case, then they would point out that the laws and actions taken were entirely DEMOCRAT creations and Republicans were simply maintaining the rule of law and not the authoritarian diktats of the formerly Democrat-controlled Congress and an arrogant, narcissistic, authoritarian, lying president. What they have to do, under any circumstance, is to get the message out without depending on the subservient media messengers who are unreliable and biased. Executing an end run around the media and getting the widest broadcast without their interference is essential. Prove to them that they can be controlled from the right was well as from the left and then GOPe doesn’t have to worry about anything except organizing their own popular cocktail parties.
.
Got the stomach for it, GOPe?

Just more useless Outrage Theater. The Constitution already has a mechanism in place to deal with this situation – it’s called impeachment. The court will toss the suit at the first opportunity on those grounds alone.

Just more useless Outrage Theater. The Constitution already has a mechanism in place to deal with this situation – it’s called impeachment. The court will toss the suit at the first opportunity on those grounds alone.

Here’s the full memo @SpeakerBoehner sent to members of the House RE: a lawsuit against Obama Admin for exec actions: http://goo.gl/r2qA83
==================================================================

Date: June 25, 2014 For years Americans have watched with concern as President Barack Obama has declined to faithfully execute the laws of our country
–
ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others, and at times, creating laws of his own. Article II, Section III of the Constitution of the United States dictates that the president,
as head of the Executive Branch of our government, “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” even if the president does not agre
e with the purpose of that law. Under the Constitution
’
s separation of powers principle, only the Legislative Branch has the power to legislate. On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce
–
at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him. On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day. Presidents have traditionally been granted a degree of latitude with respect to the enforcement of the law, and tension between the branches of our government is hardly new. But at various points in our history when the Executive Branch has attempted to claim for itself the ability to make law, the Legislative Branch has responded, and it is only through such responses that the balance of power envisioned by the Framers has been maintained. President Obama
’
s aggressive unilateralism has significant implications for our system of government, and presents a clear challenge to our institution and its ability to effectively represent the people. If the current president can selectively enforce, change or create laws as he chooses with impunity, without the involvement of the Legislative Branch, his successors will be able to do the same. This shifts the balance of power decisively and dangerously in favor of the presidency, giving the president king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators. It also has consequences for our economy and its ability to grow and create jobs. It’s

bad enough when Washington politicians force laws upon the people that make it difficult for private-sector employers to meet payrolls, invest in new initiatives and create jobs. It
’
s even worse when those same laws are arbitrarily enforced on the whims of the individual entrusted with the responsibility of carrying them out, adding uncertainty for private-sector job creators and families on top of the challenges they already face week-to-week. Everywhere I go in America outside of Washington, D.C., I
’
m asked: when will the House stand up on behalf of the people to stop the encroachment of executive power under President Obama? We elected a pre
sident, Americans note; we didn’
t elect a monarch or king. Every Member of the People
’
s House took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is only through strong action by the House in response to provocative executive action by the Executive Branch in the past that the separation of powers intended by the Framers has been preserved. For the integrity of our laws and the sake of our country
’
s future, the House must act now. I intend to bring to the floor in July legislation that would authorize the House of Representatives
–
through the House General Counsel and at the direction of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG)
–
to file suit in the coming weeks in an effort to compel the president to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country. The legislation would follow regular order and be considered by the Rules Committee following its introduction, prior to its consideration by the full House. Under our system of government, the Judicial Branch has the power to resolve disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches. When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure in the Judicial Branch by filing suit in Federal Court in situations in which:

There is no one else who can challenge the president
’
s failure, and harm is being done to the general welfare and trust in faithful execution of our laws;

There is no legislative remedy; and

There is explicit House authorization for the lawsuit, through a vote authorizing the litigation against the president
’
s failure. I believe the House must act as an institution to defend the constitutional principles at stake and to protect our system of government and our economy from continued executive abuse. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the laws of our country. When this legislation is introduced in the coming weeks, I ask that you review it and join me in supporting it when it goes before the House.

Sorry but the odds of them winning the legal battle are between slim and none. Even if they had a compelling argument (they don’t) and even if the courts were about to jump square into the middle of the other two branches’ pi$$ing match (they won’t) they’d have to get the case through in the next 2 and a half years before Obama is out of office or it’ll get dropped immediately. The chance of that happening is nil.

On the race deal, have only Black Republicans do interviews with the media on the impeachment. Put them in as oommittee chairs for the time of the work to be done. Same in the Senate and only allow black’s on the talk shows, only black R’s on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS and NPR.
Total black out in the coverage……
Play the race card face up.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 25, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Hey that sounds like a great idea!!!

Oh wait… There’s not a single African American Republican Senator or House Representative.

So, your idea is to hide the people actually involved and actually filing the lawsuit behind as many black people who have no hand in it at all that you can find so THEY can try to explain it for them?

Sounds like a PR disaster just waiting to happen. You might as well cut out the middle man and just ask the person next to you to go ahead and just punch you in the face to get it over with quickly.

Or are you legitimately under the impression that the Republican Party has a deep talent pool of African Americans in congress that you’re just not seeing?

Because they don’t. There’s not a single one in the US congress.

Oh they’ve run. A small handful have made it in history. But not a single one Republican voters have chosen to vote for and elect.

I guess we ARE ready for apache’s all black out media strategy! We’ve got one folks! We’ve got one. Let’s let him handle it before his special election comes around and his senate APPOINTMENT runs out.

So Boehner and company believe they can go to the courts and reign in a lawless President. The President doesn’t obey the law anyway, what makes them think he’s going to listen to a judge? Boehner and company need to pass budgets and refuse to sign CR’s. Boehner and company need to force the Senate to vote on legislation by passing it, in the House, explaining what positive effect it can have for the country and then send it to the Senate where Reid will play his games. There is no better way to win the Senate than to point out bills you’re sponsoring and Reid isn’t bringing up.

Knowing American voters as you do, which approach do you think they’ll be more receptive to, the bottom-line one or the constitutional one?

I would not expect them to be receptive to a constitutional argument itself, but that’s mainly because so many people are so ignorant of the constitution, and civics in general, that they (rightly) don’t feel capable of evaluating the merits of a constitutional claim.

But that’s the point of taking it to court. To a decent number of low info voters, the judicial branch is composed of wise men who can decipher the true meaning of those incomprehensible, mystical scrolls, which after all, were transcribed over 100 years ago.

“fecklessly evil cowardice”… That’s just wonderful. It’s been great visiting with you but I’ve got to get back to planet Earth. You take care!

V7_Sport on June 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM

You’re the delusional idiot who thinks that the GOP-E will do -diddly-squat- to stand up against Obama, when their real and openly stated concern is crushing the Tea Party. Good luck with that, Sparky. The rest of us don’t have historical amnesia about 2002-06, or about the recently expressed sentiments of McConnell, et.al.

Sorry but the odds of them winning the legal battle are between slim and none. Even if they had a compelling argument (they don’t) and even if the courts were about to jump square into the middle of the other two branches’ pi$$ing match (they won’t) they’d have to get the case through in the next 2 and a half years before Obama is out of office or it’ll get dropped immediately. The chance of that happening is nil.

This is pure grandstanding.

Tlaloc on June 25, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Yep, lunatics like 2-Stroke Cylinder and co. just lap this nonsense up like clotted cream. It’s a pathetic shiny distraction that -should- get bounced with prejudice by any judge with a functioning gial cell. I can see some of the leftist appointments taking this to establish a booby precedent prize for the next Republican president, however. It’s not as if Obama will be any more inclined to obey a judicial injunction from this risible vexatious lawsuit than he is REAL jurisprudence that’s gone against his unilateral diktats.

Run the country without a budget on continuing resolutions, for one thing, not that that matters to you, Tiny Tim.

Tiny Tim? So the thought went through your head that it would be devastating and totally not something that Frank Burns from MASH would say to call me Tiny Tim. That would be a good thing and not laughable or anything.
So his cap and trade, his amnesty, his gun confiscation, that all got through congress? Yes, the fact that Harry Reid is breaking the law and not passing a budget bothers me, people seem more concerned that they were called a name though, and want to punish those who would remove Reid from power.

Good luck with that, Sparky….Yep, Cochran explicitly declares war on fiscal responsibility and conservatism and -I’m- the one denying reality? You really are pathetically delusional.

That’s right, I thought I was Sparky instead of Tiny Tim because sparky was so 2014. So now we are back to punishing the people who want a budget. A fellow could get whiplash trying to keep track of your positrons.

You poor thing. Here’s an idea, if you don’t want the bad old man to call you a wacko-bird don’t be such a wacko bird.

V7_Sport on June 25, 2014 at 11:53 PM

Go right ahead, I’ve had the last laugh over punks like you for a long time. Reality has a way of doing that.

Go ahead and what? Do you even read what you are responding to or do you just rub both IQ points together and come up with really contemporary insult-names like Tiny Tim, Sparky and Punk?
You haven’t acquitted yourself too well in this exchange. You should probably just call it a night before you call me a “scoundrel” or a “rascal” or “Isaac from the love boat” or whatever non sequitur that bounces into that skull of yours.

Go ahead and what? Do you even read what you are responding to or do you just rub both IQ points together and come up with really contemporary insult-names like Tiny Tim, Sparky and Punk?
You haven’t acquitted yourself too well in this exchange. You should probably just call it a night before you call me a “scoundrel” or a “rascal” or “Isaac from the love boat” or whatever non sequitur that bounces into that skull of yours.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 12:44 AM

This joke of a lawsuit will go nowhere and is already being ridiculed as the wretched publicity stunt that it is, by people on both sides of the political divide. All that flipping the Senate will do is cause McConnell to grovel to the minority and stick his finger in the wind in order to avoid losing whatever R gains are made in 2016, when the Senate election breakdown is legitimately bad for the GOP.

Maybe this adds to the weight of negativity surrounding this incapable president. By itself, it may not do much, but the feeling is now permeating that this guy really (really) does not know what he is doing.

Ironically, it is foreign policy failures and venal attempts to obscure his role in it that make it clear he is unfit, when all they time he was concerned with domestic success.

People even forgive his healthcare screw-up, and in Benghazi he traded lives for re-election, but the Bergdahl bum-deal is probably what confirmed, for most normal people, that he is seriously without common sense, or in fact any kind of compass.

O’s going to go to voters and say, “I tried to help you by protecting you from a bad law which I pushed for, which was voted for, solely by my party, over the will of the voters, which bears my name and which I signed into law.”

Go ahead and what? Do you even read what you are responding to or do you just rub both IQ points together and come up with really contemporary insult-names like Tiny Tim, Sparky and Punk?
You haven’t acquitted yourself too well in this exchange. You should probably just call it a night before you call me a “scoundrel” or a “rascal” or “Isaac from the love boat” or whatever non sequitur that bounces into that skull of yours.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 12:44 AM

If you’re going to support a delusional old fossil like Cochran, you might as well get insults appropriate to your time period.

Maybe this adds to the weight of negativity surrounding this incapable president. By itself, it may not do much, but the feeling is now permeating that this guy really (really) does not know what he is doing.

Ironically, it is foreign policy failures and venal attempts to obscure his role in it that make it clear he is unfit, when all they time he was concerned with domestic success.

People even forgive his healthcare screw-up, and in Benghazi he traded lives for re-election, but the Bergdahl bum-deal is probably what confirmed, for most normal people, that he is seriously without common sense, or in fact any kind of compass.

virgo on June 26, 2014 at 1:04 AM

Obama has always lived in an entitled bubble and been socially promoted beyond his experience and/or competence level. Had he combined his America-hatred with real legislative know-how a-la LBJ or the personal retail charm of Bill Clinton, we’d be in even worse shape than we are now, which is terrible to contemplate.

It’s clear now what is happening on our southern border. The Obama administration decided to use this law to import hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Central American illegal alien kids (the Feinstein law doesn’t apply to Mexican and Canadian kids) during the last two years of Obama’s term. They knew that if they got the UACs here, the Feinstein law would prevent them from being deported. That is why all these kids started showing up recently, talking (until they were told to shut up) about how they had come because they had been told that they would get “permissos” — i.e., special permission to stay in the U.S.

AZCoyote on June 25, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Don’t forget that getting them here sets up the inevitable chain migration which will take place once the Dems, the GOPe and the Chamber of Crony Capitalists put the finishing touches on the amnesty measure they’re getting ready to jam down our throats. It would simply be inhumane to deny these poor kids their chances to be reunited with their parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., after all!

The hard thing here for the GOP, though, isn’t the legal battle but the political battle. Like I said when I wrote about this in January, they’re essentially betting that there’s enough of a civic reservoir among the public that Republicans won’t be punished if they win this suit and Obama is forced to cancel his executive DREAM amnesty or to apply the nastier provisions of ObamaCare that he’s suspended so far. O’s going to go to voters and say, “I tried to help you by protecting you from bad laws. Republicans wouldn’t let me.” The GOP’s going to then turn around and say, “What he was doing was unconstitutional. Case closed.” Knowing American voters as you do, which approach do you think they’ll be more receptive to, the bottom-line one or the constitutional one? This is why Boehner held off until now on suing, of course — because he has a sneaking suspicion he wouldn’t win that public opinion battle, even though he should. By filing this suit only a few months before the midterms, maybe he’s counting on it being tied up in court long enough that he won’t have to worry about the outcome until after the votes are in.

Go ahead and what? Do you even read what you are responding to or do you just rub both IQ points together and come up with really contemporary insult-names like Tiny Tim, Sparky and Punk?
You haven’t acquitted yourself too well in this exchange. You should probably just call it a night before you call me a “scoundrel” or a “rascal” or “Isaac from the love boat” or whatever non sequitur that bounces into that skull of yours.

V7_Sport on June 26, 2014 at 12:44 AM

This joke of a lawsuit will go nowhere and is already being ridiculed as the wretched publicity stunt that it is, by people on both sides of the political divide.

Great, now you want to talk about the lawsuit. So you are a constitutional scholar? You have come to the conclusion it is a joke by reading the briefs and pouring over case law and all that? Seeing as it hasn’t been filed with the court yet that would be impossible. So door #2 would be that you listened to some blowhard here and immediately adopted his or her opinion and used the appeal to popularity fallacy to call it a joke. Yeah, perhaps you should just go back to calling me Sparky.

All that flipping the Senate will do is cause McConnell to grovel to the minority and stick his finger in the wind in order to avoid losing whatever R gains are made in 2016, when the Senate election breakdown is legitimately bad for the GOP.

Whatever that meant. Losing the Senate will stop Obama cold. It’s just that simple.

If you’re going to support a delusional old fossil like Cochran, you might as well get insults appropriate to your time period.

ebrown2 on June 26, 2014 at 1:07 AM

Good one. The thing is he won, completely without any help from me, and not supporting him at this juncture is supporting a genuine traitor to the country: Harry Reid. as well as Barack Obama.

The only possible things that Boner will get from this show are the items he might get in Discovery. That is, if the Administration complies with Discovery. Other than that, as others have said, this is all show, it is distraction, it is dropping chaff.